Statement of the Problem - LaGrange College



HOMEWORK: DRILL AND PRACTICE VERSUS REAL APPLICATION

Except where reference is made to a work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.

_________________________________________________________________

Gregory Lee Farmer

Certificate of Approval:

______________________________ ______________________________

Dr. Don Livingston Dr. Sharon Livingston

Co-Thesis Chair Associate Professor Co-Thesis Chair Associate Professor

Education Department Education Department

HOMEWORK: DRILL AND PRACTICE VERSUS REAL APPLICATION

A thesis submitted

by

Gregory Lee Farmer

to

LaGrange College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirement for the

degree of

MASTER OF EDUCATION

in

Curriculum and Instruction

Lagrange, Georgia

June 28, 2011

Abstract

Homework is an ongoing problem among teachers, students, and parents. The goal of this research was to identify the best type of homework to use to increase standardized test performance. Students completed two mathematic units using the same teaching style with different types of homework for each. The first unit was on time using drill and practice homework. The second unit was on measurement using real-application homework. The study showed that as to standardized test performance, the type of homework did not matter. However, as to student preference, students enjoyed the real-application homework more. Some students felt that the drill and practice homework better developed the basic skills. The researchThe researcher showed the conclusionded that a small amount of drill and practice could be used by the teacher. However, real-application homework would create a more positive attitude toward homework. This would create a more positive learning environment.

Table of Contents

Abstract iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Table(s) v

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 1

Significance of the Problem 2

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks 3

Focus Questions 6

Overview of Methodology 8

Human as a Researcher 9

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 10

Writing an Effective Unit Plan 10

Examining the Best Homework Practices 13

Student Attitudes Toward Types of Homework 17

Chapter 3: Methodology 21

Research Design 21

Setting 21

Subject and Participants 22

Procedures and Data Collection Methods 23

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias 26

Analysis of Data 30

Chapter 4: Results 34

Writing an Effective Unit Plan 34

Examining the Best Homework Practices 39

Student Attitudes Toward Types of Homework 49

Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion of Results 56

Analysis 56

Discussion 62

Implications 63

Recommendations for Future Research 64

References 65

Appendixes 68

List of Tables

Tables

Table 3.1: Data Shell 24

Table 4.1: T-Test of Overall Comparison Between the Two Groups 40

Table 4.2: T-Test: Comparing Non-White Students on the Two Tests 41

Table 4.3: T-Test: Comparing White Students on the Two Tests 42

Table 4.4: T-Test: Comparing Non-White to White Students on Test 1 43

Table 4.5: T-Test: Comparing Non-White to White Students on Test 2 44

Table 4.6: T-Test: Comparing Females on the Two Tests 45

Table 4.7: T-Test: Comparing Males on the Two Tests 46

Table 4.8: T-Test: Comparing Females to Males on Test 1 47

Table 4.9: T-Test: Comparing Females to Males on Test 2 48

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Many teachers assign homework because it is expected, not necessarily because of the academic value. The purpose of this study was to determine if views toward homework and homework type increased test performance. The subject is quite vehemently debated among both critics and supporters of assigning homework. Due to the increased number of articles, journal papers, and research papers in recent years, homework and its validity have become more important than ever (Trautwein, Niggli, Schnyder, & Ludtke, 2009). Despite the question of value, particularly to elementary school students, more and more homework continues to be piled on students (Kohn, 2007).

According to Kohn (2007) the negative effects of homework are overwhelming. Students, already exhausted from a long day at school, are not concerned with quality of the work completed. Completion is the only goal for homework. Kohn also show, in his research, that he has found no valid correlation between volume of homework and any meaningful measure of achievement. Homework is often given out of the obligation of expectation (Vanderott, 2003). Parents have come to expect homework because that was what they had to do in school. Teachers often seek to fill that expectation with any busy work that easily available.

Many educators believe that districts, that throw away homework altogether, have disregarded a powerful instructional tool (Marzano & Pickering, 2007). Marzano & Pickering’s research shows repeated cases where those who do homework have greater gains in academic achievement than those that have no homework. Hence, the problem may not be with homework in general, but with the type of homework given. The most commonly cited definition of homework is “tasks assigned to students by school teachers that are meant to be carried out during non-school hours” (Cooper, 1989, p. 7). This definition is quite broad as to what type of homework should be given. Making homework relevant and interesting can significantly improve the attitude and completion rates of students (Trautwein, 2007).

Therefore, the study was completed to determine what type of homework had the most value. In this study, the value of homework was determined by attitudes and standardized test achievement.

Significance of the Problem

No one ever could argue that students like homework. Involved parents often times are frustrated with the volume of homework (Vanderott, 2003). When parents get frustrated with the volume or difficulty of homework, they tend to project that tension into the parent-teacher relationship. Our job, as educators, is to form strong bonds with parents for the benefit of the child. When parents blame teachers for stress and lost family time then the child, caught in the middle, suffers.

Bennett and Kalish (2006) list multiple arguments against homework. Homework causes loss of family time, overburdens students, and causes negative emotions in both parents and students. They believe that there is little evidence of a direct link between homework and student achievement. Hence, the negative effects outweigh any perceived positive effects.

Children’s tension, boredom, and stress are all negatively associated with academic performance. Conversely, positive interest, humor, and pride are all positively associated with academic performance (Else-Quest, Hyde, & Hejmadi, 2008). By making homework meaningful and able to be completed in fifteen minutes, the teacher can decrease negative effects and encourage the positive ones. This can increase student performance.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

This study aligns with Tenet 2 of the Conceptual Framework Undergirding Professional Education Programs of Lagrange College. This tenet pertains to exemplary professional teaching practices. Tenet 2 states that elementary school students should be assigned homework. The learned material must then be transferred to situations outside of the classroom (Fosnot & Perry, 2005). By offering real application homework assignments, the students were given opportunity to complete assignments that were relevant and helped them make connections with the world around them.

The teacher must make the learning relevant to individual circumstances of the student. Social constructivism requires that students learn the material at a conceptual level in the classroom. Then it can be transferred to relevant situations outside of the classroom.

The study fits Domain Five of the Six Domains of the Georgia Framework for Teaching. Domain Five, pertaining to planning and instruction, states that teachers design and create instructional experiences based on their knowledge of content and curriculum, students, learning environments, and assessments (as cited by LaGrange College Education, 2009, p. 11). This study was to determine the best type of homework to assign. Teachers will now be able to use this knowledge base to implement the best practices in the classroom.

The study complies with Element 1C of the Five Elements of NCATE 2000 Standard 1 for Initial Programs. This element pertains to professional and pedagogical knowledge and skills for teacher candidates (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2009, p. 12). The unit taught clearly stated the Georgia Performance Standards addressed each day and how they related to the lessons. The goal of the study was to show the benefit of meaningful learning experiences in homework. The homework was then used to address specific and individual concerns of the learners.

Element 1D of the Five Elements of NCATE 2000 Standard 1 for Initial Programs is also addressed in this study. This element is about assessing student learning for teacher candidates (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2009, p. 12). This demonstrates the initial and continuing preparation of teachers. The initial preparation for the teacher was evident in the learning plan. The plan, however, was not concrete. The performance of the students was assessed regularly. Augmentations were made based upon student need. This continuing preparation aided students in the learning process.

This study aligns with Proposition Two of the Five NBPTS Core Propositions for Experienced Teachers. The proposition states that teachers will know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2009, p. 12). By all of the background research, the best practices into teaching were observed. This study demonstrated the best way to teach students via homework assignments. Knowledge of the subject matter was demonstrated in the learning plan and assessments.

Secondly as to the Five NBPTS Core Propositions for Experienced Teachers, the study meets the requirements to Proposition Three. This proposition requires that teachers are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2009, p. 12). To do this the teacher must alter the learning experience to capture and sustain the attention of the student. This study demonstrated the value of making the learning experience relevant to the student through real application homework.

This study also meets several of the Ten INTASC Principles for Beginning Teachers. The first principle is Principle Four, which states that the teacher understands and uses a variety of instructional strategies to encourage students’ development of critical thinking, problem solving, and performance skills. This is the Multiple Instructional Strategies principle (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2009, p. 12). This principle was met in the classroom research phase of the study. Students were given two completely different types of homework. That homework engaged critical thinking, and problem solving skills. Many of the classroom instruction lessons also included performance tasks completed by students alone and in groups.

The next principle met is Principle Five which states that the teacher uses an understanding of individual and group motivation and behavior to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation. This is the principle that relates to learner motivation and behavior (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2009, p. 12). High quality homework and instruction are positively associated with higher motivation, leading to higher achievement (Dettmers, Trautwein, Ludtke, Kunter, & Baumert, 2010). It was thmy e assumption of the researcher thatthat the higher quality homework would increase active engagement in learning, as the assignments would have more meaning for the students.

The third principle of the Ten INTASC Principles for Beginning Teachers that is addressed is Principle Seven. This principle states that the teacher plans instruction based upon knowledge of subject matter, students, the community, and curriculum goals (as cited by LaGrange College Education Department, 2009, p. 12). The Georgia Performance Standards addressed were evident in the learning plan. The students, also, clearly saw the learning goals each day on our bulletin board. The teachers planned instruction collaboratively, pooling group resources and the knowledge base to create the best learning experience possible.

Focus Questions

The first focus question examined the effectiveness of the instructional plan. The plan being implemented covered the Georgia Performance Standards related to geometry and measurement. The website contains the frameworks for teaching this unit. These frameworks are based upon the input of curriculum specialists to help students achieve. In addition to the Georgia Frameworks, the unit also included the additions made by the Meriwether County Frameworks. These frameworks are assembled by teachers who have taught the lessons and are updated each year.

The plan was reviewed by the grade level chair of third grade. This evaluation was in the form of an open ended rubric. The suggested augmentations were discussed with the grade level chair. The plan was then adapted and reviewed again the grade level chair.

Next, the study was to determine the best homework method. The study examined the same two classrooms with different homework situations. The first section was on time using drill and practice homework. The students were given a long series of computations to complete and practice each night. The second section was over measurement using real-application homework. Students had open-ended higher order thinking questions, as well as, game-like challenges to complete. Each section culminated in a posttest.

The posttest data was evaluated using an independent T-test. This test was used because, though the groups being tested are the same, they are being tested under different circumstances effectively making them two groups using the variable of homework. An independent T-test is used to compare two groups where each participant is tested only once and the groups are unrelated (Salkind, 2010). The first time the group was tested and taught did not, in any way, relate to the material taught and tested on the second section of the unit. Each time new material was taught and tested over similarly, but a pre-test was not used.

Finally, the study revealed how students felt about real application versus drill and practice homework. Student input through focus groups was an important part of assessing the preference of homework. Cooper (1994) states, that some of the negative effects of homework are fatigue and loss of interest. The study addressed these concerns with a daily journal and informal conversations with students. Additional information was researched in the review of the literature.

Overview of Methodology

To aid in the discussion of focus question one, the learning plan had a rubric to determine its effectiveness. The plan was reviewed by the grade level chair of third grade. This evaluation was in the form of an open ended rubric. The suggested augmentations were discussed with the grade level chair. The plan was then adapted and reviewed again the grade level chair.

Focus question two was addressed by the action research data. This study was a comparison of real application and drill and practice homework assignments. The posttest data was evaluated using an independent T-test. This test was used because though the groups being tested are the same, they were being tested under different circumstances, effectively making them two groups using the variable of homework. An independent T-test is used to compare two groups where each participant is tested only once (Salkind, 2010). The first time the group was tested and taught did not, in any way, relate to the material taught and tested on the second section of the unit. Each time new material was taught and tested over similarly, but a pre-test was not used.

To determine attitudes, the students were questioned in focus groups to address focus question three. Student input through focus groups was an important part of assessing the preference of homework. Cooper (1994) shows that there are many negative effects of homework, such as, fatigue and loss of interest. The study addressed these concerns with a daily journal and informal conversations with students. Additional information was researched in the review of the literature. Interviews with the outliers were also a part of the qualitative data collected.

Human as a Researcher

I am a 3rd grade teacher at Unity Elementary. In my first year teaching at this school, I was the 5th grade math teacher. During that time I attended many seminars on a variety of math topics, such as, hands-on math, and mathematics teaching strategies. I attended seminars at our Central Office, other schools in our district, and Columbus State University.

As a parent, I see the volumes of homework assigned to my two elementary school children. I personally see much of it as mere busy work with no real content. I also noticed that much of it is only checked for completion not correctness. My bias going into this is split. I feel that a moderate amount of reinforcing homework can be beneficial. I feel that some homework is needed to reinforce teaching. However, I think many teachers give too much homework because it is expected of them.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Writing an Effective Unit Plan

The first focus question deals with how effective the instructional plan was assembled and implemented. Several things were addressed in the development of the plan. First the curriculum and reasoning for the chosen methods of planning the unit and assignments had to be examined. Second, the design of the unit had to be qualified. Finally, approaches to student learning and the constructivist style were discussed.

The instructional plan covers the unit of geometry and measurement, as well as, the unit of time. This plan was designed to meet the Georgia Performance Standards for third grade in the area of mathematics.

There were two distinct methods of curriculum application present in this unit. The first connected with the scholarly academic approach to planning. The second related to the learner centered approach. The two disciplines were addressed in the planning of the units on time and measurement, respectively.

The drill and practice technique was used for the teaching of the first unit on time. According to Schiro (2008) those who use the scholarly academic approach put the subject matter first. Concerns of society, the learner and even the learning process become secondary to getting out the curriculum. The drill and practice approach most closely identifies with this method. It does not concern itself with the student as an individual or with schema development for constructing real knowledge. It merely gets the basics into the learner’s head for him to learn to apply elsewhere on his own. The scholarly academic does focus on the ability to think and reason, according to Schiro (2008), but memorization of the content must come first.

The second method of curriculum application is the learner-centered ideology. This related to the real-application aspect of the measurement unit. Schiro (2008) shows several ways in which this ideology can be used. First, is from first-hand experience with reality. This avoids second-hand views and provides the learner to confront the real world. The real application homework in the measurement unit met this standard with word problems to relate to the student. Second, Schiro says that the learner needs experience with physical materials and people. Homework is often completed with a parent or relative at home. This provides for the experience with people. During the measurement unit the learner used real measurement tools and get hands on experience. This also, provided the learner with Schiro’s third practice which is experience that involves movement. Lastly, Schiro says that the learner needs experiences inside and outside of the classroom. Both units fit this experience.

Childre, Sands, and Pope (2009) says that just because a student can memorize and regurgitate information on a test does not mean that that student has understood the material or has gained any real knowledge. This debate over memorization versus real understanding was at the heart of the instructional plan. The two types of homework assigned mirrored the memorization and regurgitation method versus the real understanding method exactly. The unit was designed using the backward design method. Childre, et al. (2009), give four steps that must be taken into account in using backward design.

First you must identify the learners. The unit plan took into account all learners. The students were partnered to maximize the learning opportunities. Identifying the learners also allows you to weave accommodations into the fabric of the instructional plan. Accommodations seem like a natural part of the class.

Second, Childre et al. (2009) state that you need to identify the curricular priorities. This can be accomplished by stating the essential questions. The instructional plan had seven essential questions that the students must have been able to identify. This also provided for ongoing adaptation of the unit to maximize the learning experiences.

Third, Childre et al. (2009) remind the reader to design an assessment framework. The instructional plan had these assessments incorporated into the lessons. Again, the teacher could evaluate the ability to answer the essential questions, as well as, the summarizing activity each day. The final assessment incorporated elements of these essential questions, and other informal assessments to create a final analysis of learning.

Finally, Childre et al. (2009) speak to the subject of the actual teaching. The teacher must create meaningful learning experiences. The instructional plan had the timeline in which to accomplish each of the learning goals. The detailed unit plan took into account all of the previous backward design elements and incorporated them into daily learning experiences. Backward design is based in the heart of the constructivist teacher.

The unit was planned for constructivist learning. Alsup (2004) says that children must construct their own way of looking at things. The unit plan was intent on students learning how to answer the open-ended essential questions in a way that was meaningful to them. The homework for the measurement unit was entirely constructivist in nature. Students manipulated tools and found answers on their own at home.

Examining the Best Homework Practices

When determining which type of homework is better several things must be examined. Drill and practice techniques must be understood. Also, one must examine real-application homework and its detriments and benefits. Also, the logic behind both techniques must be investigated.

Gage (1978) stated that much time for education could be wasted and that the time spent by students on homework could be wasted. Over thirty years ago experts were seeing a flaw in the homework system and the need to re-evaluate methods. To better understand the future and current views of homework, one must see the viewpoints on the subject. This will bring to light the engrained standards and ideas and possibly the need for change.

Fosnot and Perry (2005) noted that mathematics homework, traditionally, has been a ready-made discipline taught in the classroom by teachers and then practiced and repeated by students. This ideology of mathematics has been around a while and has fostered the love of the drill and practice homework routine. Most of us remember the volume of homework we had to do as children. Most of the mathematics relied on the idea that if you did it enough times you would eventually understand.

Trautwein et al. (2009) show in his research that teachers did highly endorse the drill and practice technique as it pertains to mathematics. This shifts the responsibility to the students to memorize and develop a memory schema that keeps the skill in the mind of the student. Teachers believe that if the basic skills are mastered then they would have no problem applying those skills when necessary.

The drill and practice technique is not unique to mathematics homework. Music teachers incorporate this technique every day with scales practice. Music teachers often have students play the same pieces over and over until they memorize the physical movements of the piece. Football and other sports coaches always use basic skills and repeated drills to hammer in the base concepts of a sport. The success of the drill and practice, via great musicians and superstar athletes, would lead one to believe that the drill and practice technique has validity.

Despite the historical pattern and the apparent successes of drill and practice many oppose this technique and question its validity. According to Rathus (1999) learning is a relatively permanent change in behavior that arises from experience. Rathus states that, according to Piaget, children are natural physicists who seek to learn about their world. Based upon this children would have a hard time learning from mere repetitive practice. This provides no development of a schema that is relevant to them. Without a relevant schema of understanding the skill has little chance of going from short-term to long-term memory. If children are seeking to understand their world, then to learn something, they must apply it to their world. This concept would show that homework must be relevant and have a real-world application in order to have any academic value. After all, teachers should be seeking to foster an enduring knowledge of a subject, not just enough rote memorization to pass the test.

Many researchers are in stark opposition to the drill and practice homework practice. Dettmers et al. (2010) clearly maps out the problems with drill and practice. If the goal is mastery of the material, then drill and practice does not accomplish that goal. Teachers assign a number of similar problems with the intent of increasing memory through repetition. There is a flaw to that line of logic in homework practices. If the student does not grasp the basic concept, then more problems are not the answer. Bluntly, Simplicio (2005) states that “if a student cannot do one of the problems, she most certainly cannot do twenty of them” (p. 140). Conversely, if a student already has mastery of a skill and can complete the homework, then completing twenty repetitions is merely a busy-work waste of time.

Trautwein, also, weighs in heavily on the subject. Drill and practice, generally, is about volume and time. In the Trautwein et al. 2009 study, The homework-achievement relation reconsidered: differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort, they examined the achievement relationship and homework. They state that “there is a widespread belief that time on homework is associated with greater achievement gains but empirical support for the homework-achievement relation is not unequivocal”(p. 372). The study determined that time spent on homework initially seemed to be a factor. He then examined the other indicators and saw that time was not necessarily the primary connection to achievement. The study determined that the frequency, as in number of days a week, and they type of homework were the key indicators of achievement.

Many educators believe that districts that throw away homework altogether have disregarded a powerful instructional tool (Marzano & Pickering, 2007). Marzano and Pickering’s research shows repeated cases where those who do homework have greater gains in academic achievement than those that have no homework. Thus, the problem may not be with homework in general, but with the type of homework given. As previously quoted, the most commonly cited definition of home work is “tasks assigned to students by school teachers that are meant to be carried out during non school hours” (Cooper, 1989, p. 7). This definition is quite broad as to what type of homework should be given. Differentiating homework and making it relevant can significantly improve the attitude and completion rates of students (Trautwein, 2007).

Possible threats to this study, also, needed to be considered. The study researcher had to be prepared to respond to variables other than the issue of homework type. There were many other factors to consider when determining the most valid type of homework.

Trautwein (2007) tells us of these issues when he states,

There are at least three potential threats to the validity of typical correlation studies on the homework-achievement relationship. First, homework can be related to achievement at two levels. One, a homework effect at the class level (or homework assignment effect) is found when students in classes with a higher quantity or quality of homework have more pronounced achievement gains than students in other classes. The other, a homework effect at the student level (or homework completion effect), is found when students in the same class who differ in their homework behavior show differential outcomes. In this sense, homework is a classic example of the multilevel problem. (p. 373).

The homework assignment effect was essentially the purpose of this study. However, one must consider all aspects of homework. Completion rate and other variables could have been attributed to home life, emotions, and attitudes of the student. Therefore the question of attitudes of the students must be considered.

Student Attitudes Toward Types of Homework

The third focus question deals with attitudes toward homework. When examining homework attitudes, two issues must be considered. First, how experts and educators feel about homework and its effects must be examined. Second, the impact on families and students should be considered.

Simplicio (2005) shows how students respond to drill and practice homework. The previously quoted article Homework in the 21st Century: The Antiquated and Ineffectual Implementation of a Time Honored Educational Strategy shows that students who cannot grasp the homework material get frustrated with the thought of doing many problems that they cannot understand. Frustration causes a dislike of the subject and leads to giving up, not development of mathematical skills. The article also looks at students who already have a mastery of the material and can easily complete the assignment. These students see this as a repetitive waste of time. This leads students to “boredom and a dislike for a subject that requires monotonous and repetitious homework assignments” (Simplicio, 2005, p. 140). This practice will kill any spark of interest that students might develop in mathematics and has lead to widespread dislike of mathematics by people everywhere. Students cannot get engaged in assignments that they either cannot do or can too easily complete.

Fosnot and Perry (2005) speak to the subject of engagement and its value. Fosnot & Perry recognize that students must be engaged. When students are not engaged they are less productive. Thus, when they are engaged, their interests are aroused. They want to complete the task because it has some value to them personally. It empowers the student when he feels that completing the assignment is something chosen because of interest and he is not just submitting to adult dominance.

Constructivism requires that a student be interested and engaged in a subject in order to learn and succeed. Interest in something is a kind of energy. That energy is the key to promoting constructive effort and real learning. Fosnot and Perry state that “methods aimed at promoting the constructive process must arouse the child’s spontaneous interest that is inherent in constructive activity” (2005, p. 146). Teachers cannot consider themselves true constructivist educators if they are assigning homework that discourages students with monotony, boredom, or frustration.

Families are impacted by homework as well. In the article Mother and Child Emotions during Mathematics Homework (Else-Quest et al., 2008), the emotions of children and parents are studied.

The most notable positive emotions displayed by mothers and children included positive interest, affection, joy, and pride, whereas the most notable negative emotions expressed included tension, frustration, and distress. Reflecting the social aspects of doing homework together, mothers’ and children’s emotions were highly correlated (p. 5).

As shown earlier by Fosnot and Perry (2005), drill and practice leads to all of the negative emotions recognized by Else-Quest. These negative emotions lead to discouragement and disinterest in mathematics. Teachers should consider the possibilities of tension and frustration in the assignment of homework.

The ideals of constructivist teaching support the development of positive emotions. This comes when students can feel accomplishment and pride in the completion of an assignment. Good emotions lead to a positive interest and accomplish the constructivist goal of engagement in the subject matter.

Parent emotions also cannot be overlooked. As Else-Quest et al. (2008) shows, “mother and child emotions are highly correlated” (p. 5). Parents also get frustrated with homework. They experience the same levels of frustration and boredom, depending on the ease or difficulty of the assignment, as their children. When you consider that social constructive education also occurs at home, the teacher should consider the emotions of the parents. After all, “children’s sense of relatedness to their parents can contribute to their school performance and engagement in school” (Else-Quest et al., 2008 p. 8). If parents feel frustrated or bored then that emotion is going to be noticed by the student. This leads the student in that direction. That, in turn, is recognized by the parent and the cycle of negative emotions escalates.

The last thing that a teacher wants is an angry parent. Frustration, in parents, can lead to the parent blaming the teacher for negative emotions. Frustrated parents may speak ill of the teacher in front of the student. This undermines the authority of the teacher in the student’s eyes. This, in turn, affects student achievement negatively, all because of poor homework assignments. Cooper (1994) shows that positive homework assignments can lead to “greater appreciation of and involvement in schooling” (p. 7).

There is even a physiological effect on students based upon how they feel about homework. Cooper states that “moreover, homework often causes a great deal of conflict among teachers, students, and parents. Indeed, many doctors and family counselors indicate that problems with homework are a frequent source of concern when children experience medical problems” (as cited by Cooper, 1994, p.1). The way students feel about homework can affect how they feel health-wise. Many stress related medical problems stem from duress over homework.

Cooper (1994), however, does acknowledge some of the positive effects of engaging homework assignments. With engaging homework, students develop greater self-direction and self-discipline. By creating relevant engaging homework with real-application, teachers can foster more inquisitiveness and more independent problem solving skills in their students. This is one of the goals of the constructivist idea of teaching.

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

This study was designed to use action research. The reason that action research was selected was because the goal of the study was to improve teaching practices in the area of homework. This coincides with the Norton (2009) statement that shows relays the goal of action research is improvement of teaching practices.

Quantitative data were collected to determine which type of homework has the most academic value to students. These data showed the improvement, or lack thereof, in the grasp of the material using two different homework strategies. Qualitative data was collected from the students. This was done using focus groups and a reflective journal. The use of focus groups and reflective journals, also complies with Norton’s (2009) view of action research. Norton tells us that self-reflective inquiry by both teacher and students is implied by action research. These data were used to determine student attitudes toward each type of homework.

The data was evaluated using an independent t-test. An independent T-test is used to compare two groups where each participant is tested only once (Salkind, 2010). By teaching two independent units and testing each group once at the end of each unit, the study essentially takes one population and turns it into two groups.

Setting

The setting of the study was at Unity Elementary School in Luthersville, Georgia. Luthersville is a small west-central Georgia town on the northern edge of Meriwether County. The population at the time of this study was fairly evenly distributed among African-Americans and Whites with a very small Hispanic community. The school was a Title One school in the Meriwether County School System that also was entirely Title One. The school’s population consisted of 476 students. The demographics of the population were 239 African-American, 201 white, 21 multi-racial, 12 Hispanic, 2 Native Americans, and 1 Asian. The choice of this school was because it is where the researcherI works and hads access.

Specifically, the two third grade classrooms of Greg Farmer and Brittany Norton were observed. These classrooms were chosen because one belongs to the researcherme and the other belongs to the grade level chair who was willing to participate in the study. Both classrooms were remarkably balanced with nearly equal parts African-American and Caucasian, as well as, nearly equal parts male and female. There was a small percentage, about four percent, of Hispanic students. Of the forty-two students, eleven were special education students, and ten were EIP students. The remaining half was tier one students.

Permission was obtained from the principal of the school, Tracy Sims. Permission was, also, granted from the Meriwether County Schools Central Office. The researcherI, also, submitted the IRB (Institutional Review Board) application to Lagrange College.

Subjects and Participants

The subjects of this study were in third grade at Unity Elementary School. They ranged in age from seven to nine years old. There were twenty students in the Farmer classroom and twenty-two in the Norton classroom. There were no REACH (our term for gifted) students in either class. There were a wide variety of academic levels in the classrooms. In the Farmer classroom there were 7 EIP students and 3 students receiving special education services. The remaining 10 were regular tier one students. In the Norton classroom there were 8 EIP students and 6 students receiving special education services. The remaining 8 were regular tier one students. That made the overall population of the study 15 EIP students, 9 students receiving special education services and 18 regular tier one students.

The racial, ethnic, and gender breakdown was fairly balanced. In the Norton classroom, there were 4 white girls, 3 Hispanic girls, and 6 African-American girls for a total of 13 girls. There were 2 white and 7 African-American boys, in the Norton classroom, for a total of 9 boys. In the Farmer classroom, there were 5 white girls and 4 African-American girls for a total of 9 girls. There were 5 white and 6 African-American boys for at total of 11 boys. The entire population was composed of 22 girls and 20 boys. There were 23 African-American students, 3 Hispanic students, and 16 white students.

The only participant in the study was Brittany Norton. Mrs. Norton is the grade level chair of third grade at Unity Elementary. Her classroom was included in the study so that the population being studied was larger than the 20 in the researcherme’s class. Mrs. Norton had agreed to participate. She was going to be teaching the same material with the same resources each day, as well as, assigning the same homework.

Procedures and Data Collection Methods

The researcher haI haves outlined all of the steps in the process of this study. This was in order to provide clarity and allow the research to be scrutinized by review. This outline was clear enough that others could duplicate all or part of this study in the future.

For the initial data collection literary sources were used. This involved the creation of a data shell and formation of the statement of the problem. Three focus questions shaped the scope of the literature research. As the research progressed, the initial statement of the problem and initial focus questions evolved into their current forms. This provided the researcherme with a focus and direction for creating the instructional plan and creating an action research study (see Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Data Shell

|Focus Question |Literature Sources |Type of Method and Data |How are data analyzed |

| | |measurement scale | |

|How effective is my unit plan? |Schiro (2008). |Method: |Qualitative: |

| |Alsup (2004). |Open-ended rubric, archival |coded for themes |

| |Childre, A., Sands, J., & Pope,|research, Instructional Plan | |

| |S. (2009). | | |

| | |Data: | |

| | |Qualitative | |

|Which type of homework, drill |Fosnot, C., & Perry, R. (2005).|Method: |Quantitative: |

|and practice or real | |archival, assessment |Independent t-test |

|application, has the greatest | | | |

|academic value in terms of |Trautwein, U., Niggli, A., |Data: |Qualitative: |

|student achievement on |Schnyder, I., & Ludtke, O. |Quantitative |Coded for themes |

|standardized tests? |(2009). |Qualitative | |

| | | | |

| |Dettmers, S., Trautwein, U., | | |

| |Ludtke, O., Kunter, M., & | | |

| |Baumert, J. (2010). | | |

|What are the students’ attitudes|Simplicio, J. (2005). |Method: |Qualitative: |

|toward the two types of | |interview, focus group, |Coded for themes |

|homework? |Else-Quest, N., Hyde, J., & |reflective journal | |

| |Hejmadi, A. (2008). | | |

| | |Data: | |

| |Cooper, H. (1994). |qualitative | |

Once the action research was decided upon, the instructional plan had to be designed (see Appendix A). The instructional plan incorporated all of the Georgia Performance Standards pertaining to time and measurement that were included in the units. Once the standards were decided, I designed three or four essential questions that, in answering, would lead the students to mastering the standards. Measurement of mastery was determined by the posttestss assembled by the researcher. Both the unit plan and the assessments were reviewed by the grade level chair and amended according to her input (see Appendix B). The materials needed were minimal. Only dry erase markers, dry erase boards, clocks, and rulers were required.

Next, I had to establish a timeframe in which to teach the units. The first unit was over time. The timeline allowed for four days of teaching, one day of review and one day for testing. The second unit was over measurement. The timeline allowed for four days of teaching, one day of review and one day to test.

Accommodations for special needs had to be considered. The students with reading difficulties were to have a para-professional or special educator aid them in the reading sections. Another special needs accommodation was to allow freedom of movement for the students. This was provided for within boundaries. Also, on the posttest the student’s needs were met by small group testing when necessary and by reading help when needed.

The final assessments for each unit also served as pretests. The pretest information allow for shaping of the unit for maximum instructional time. The tests were assembled to ensure that each of the Georgia Performance Standards had been met. Daily informal evaluations were done in the form of a summarizing problem and individual answering of the essential question. This information shaped the review days.

Next, the plan was put into action. The lessons were taught each day and the teacher made notes in a predefined reflective journal (see Appendix C). The other classroom teacher also recorded observations for the researcher. All of the qualitative data collected were compiled and are summarized in the results section of this study. The reflective journal analyzed student’s feelings about the previous night’s homework, as well as, the teacher’s feelings as to its effectiveness.

The final quantitative data collected were the posttest data. Each posttest consisted of 15 multiple choice questions. The questions were gathered from materials handed out to the teacher for CRCT practice. The results of these two tests were assembled in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. This will be further explained in this chapter.

The final part of data collection was in the form of focus group questions (see Appendix D). SThe researcher used several questions were used to determine how the students felt about each type of homework. Outliers were identified and were more informally interviewed (see Appendix E) as to what they think was the cause of the high or low performance. This provided that a couple of anomalies did not skew the quantitative data unfairly. This qualitative data is summarized in the results section of this paper.

Validity, Reliability, Dependability, and Bias

The validity of the unit plan was considered. The construction of the unit plan and its review falls under content validity. Content validity is used to show that the material and the test cover what should be covered to reach the academic goals during the unit. After the interview with the teacher who examined the unit plan, Ithe researcher was confident that the unit would cover the given material adequately.

Dependability must also be considered. IThe researcher wanted to make sure that the research can be duplicated as easily as possible. This was accomplished by explaining the methods used in establishing the unit plan in the methods section of this research, as well as, the rationale for using the peer rubric. The detail of the plan allowed for the control of the data collection setting. The two weeks for the accomplishment of the unit ensured that the data collection timeframe was persistent and prolonged. The reviewer of the unit plan was able to check the transcripts of our discussion notes for accuracy. The unit plan and testing materials used are included in the appendixes of this research for future use by other researchers.

No one can perform research without potential bias. The researcherI acknowledged myhis own personal biases previously in this research and now must examine potential biases in the unit plan. The unit plan was further examined for bias by a colleague and other potential biases were examined then eliminated or augmented to dismiss the unintended bias. The unit was examined for offensiveness and was found by the examiner of the unit plan to have no offensive material. As the unit is on mathematics, the possibility of offensiveness was quite low. However, according to Popham (2008) many teacher made materials often have unintended offensiveness that offends particular supgroups of students. Unfair penalization was another potential bias that could arise. Since many of the students were economically disadvantaged, rulers were provided to ensure the absence of unfair penalization. Students should not be penalized for what their parents can or cannot afford (Popham, 2008). The unit plan also showed no potential for disparate impact. The standards covered are what the State of Georgia requires. Despite any disparate impact the students were learning what they should learn. Disparate impact can more thoroughly be assessed in the evaluation of the test scores and opinions of the students.

The standardized tests and their analysis show criterion validity. According to Salkind (2010, p. 152) researchers show criterion validity when the goal is to show that test scores reflect some other criteria to indicate that the test takers are competent in an area. The students were taking a test at the end of each unit with the variable being type of homework. The results were to produce a valid assessment of the better type of homework, if any.

This research exhibits reliability through using standardized testing to collect the quantitative data. Each student was to take an identical test to evaluate which type of homework affected test results the greatest. So the data collection method was consistent. The original goal of the study was to have at least 30 students in the study and this study used over 40 students. This exceeded the original goal and was a sufficient number of subjects to complete the study. The length of time for each unit was sufficient to cover the material without being too long and allowing more unanticipated variable to affect the study.

Even with review of the unit plan there was still the possibility of bias. The data was broken down by subgroups to see if there was potential bias in the tests. The potential for bias was examined by the subgroups of male/female, and white/African American. There was really no need for socioeconomic divisions in examining bias, as the vast majority of the students came from low income households. The non-socioeconomically disadvantaged students would not have created a large enough sample size. The potential biases were part of the final stage of research which covered attitudes toward the homework given and interviews with students.

The potential offensive bias was easily overcome. The test questions were variations of previous tests that had no known offensive bias. Therefore, there was little chance that the test itself could offend any particular subgroup (Popham, 2008). Unfair bias occurs when a particular subgroup is disadvantaged because of the student’s membership in a group (Popham, 2008). Again, using variations of proven test questions from an assembled bank decreased the chance of unfair penalization. With the absence of offensiveness and unfair bias, there is no expected disparate impact. However, Popham (2008) says that even in the absence of potential bias disparate impact can occur and deserves further scrutiny. This was examined in the results section of the next chapter through student interviews.

The final area of this study focused on student opinions as to the type of homework assigned. This required construct validity. Construct validity addresses connection of interrelated variables (Salkind, 2010). The researcher examined the connections of several variables were examined during the interview process.

The student opinions and feelings were measured using dependable methods. The format chosen was through focus groups and interviews with the outliers. The testing and questioning environment was mythe researcher’s classroom to best control the setting of the research. The students had the same open-ended prompts to keep the data collection method consistent. Accurate records were kept of each student’s personal input. The focus group questions were consistent from student to student to ensure dependability. In addition, most of the students participated in the focus group to ensure that an adequate number of subjects were used. The data was completely and accurately recorded to further ensure dependability.

The final determination of bias was determined in the student focus groups and interviews of the outliers. Bias was looked at in the final test score results, and the attitudes toward the homework assignments. In the event that possible bias appeared in the test results, the researcher examined those occurrences were examined in more detail in the student interviews. The students were prompted to examine for both unfairness and offensiveness, to make sure that they were not offended and had all materials and support that they needed (Popham, 2008). The potential for disparate impact was also examined through the focus groups to ensure that there was no specific group that had a particular problem with the material covered, homework, or the test itself. Any disparate impact was identified as to ensure that, in the future, all students would get what they need to avoid any further occurrences (Popham, 2008).

Analysis of Data

Qualitative data were gathered from the unit plan review. The plan was coded for any recurring, dominant and emerging themes such as possible bias and level of efficacy of the material covered and the materials needed. IThe researcher wanted to be assured that the dominant theme throughout the unit was the specific material was adequately covered. According to Bowen (2010) when performing any type of research, collaboration with colleagues is essential. The researcherI decided to follow this practice in collaborating with a more experienced veteran on the planning of the unit.

The first area of focus covered in this research is the efficacy of the unit plan through the peer rubric and interview with the evaluating teacher. The initial unit plan was critiqued by Brittany Norton who is the grade level chair. Her comments on each area of the unit plan were written in the boxes provided in the plan. This was subsequently covered in an interview with Mrs. Norton and the areas of need were addressed.

Having previously explained the purpose of an independent t-test, data were evaluated with a t-test to compare the two groups using each type of homework to determine if there was significant difference between the means of two independent groups. The null hypothesis of this study was that there is no significant difference between drill and practice homework and real-application homework. The decision to reject the null hypothesis was set at p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download